Jump to content

Home

Do Liberals think they are above the Law?


GarfieldJL
 Share

Recommended Posts

You're trying to tell me Chicago isn't one of the most corrupt cities in the United States?

 

are you trying to tell me i should just say WELP IT'S CHICAGO and let it go like no other city even comes close to the level of corruption there or its corruption is somehow unique

 

 

 

I actually got it off of an FBI agent's commentary concerning Chicago and Illinois in general, I have been to Illinois thank you kindly and as you've stated you don't pay much attention to politics so I believe I'm more of an expert in this area than you are.
I GUESS WE CAN ALL GO **** OURSELVES THEN YOU'RE THE EXPERT WITH TIES TO THE FBI MR G-MAN ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT CHICAGO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're trying to tell me Chicago isn't one of the most corrupt cities in the United States?

 

Do you seriously not consider it a non sequitur to assume that because some or even many politicians in Chicago are corrupt that it, therefore, implies all are (or, more to your point, all democratic ones)?

 

Part Two of this question: Do you know what a non sequitur is?

 

 

I actually got it off of an FBI agent's commentary concerning Chicago and Illinois in general,

 

So, you're saying that an FBI website or the FBI's official comment is that it is appropriate to use a pejorative "Chicago politician" in the same manner one might say, "your name is Mudd" (after the doctor who treated a famous Presidential assassin)? Hmm...

 

I have been to Illinois thank you kindly

 

Lots of people have been there. Myself included. It doesn't make them "experts" on Chicago politics anymore than visiting Boston or Houston makes me an expert in baked beans and Oil.

 

and as you've stated you don't pay much attention to politics so I believe I'm more of an expert in this area than you are

 

You've yet to demonstrate your expertise on much of anything in this forum, Garf. Least of all politics. I hate to be honest, but sometimes that's the best policy.

Edited by SkinWalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you seriously not consider it a non sequitur to assume that because some or even many politicians in Chicago are corrupt that it, therefore, implies all are (or, more to your point, all democratic ones)?

 

Considering the shear number of Governors indicted or convicted in the last century. Oh I'm sorry the quote was Illinois (which is even worse).

 

CHICAGO -- At a press conference here Tuesday announcing federal corruption charges against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, FBI Special Agent Robert Grant said that "if [illinois] isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, it is one hell of a competitor."
--Wall Street Journal

 

 

 

Part Two of this question: Do you know what a non sequitur is?

 

Yes, and I suggest you look in a mirror because I am basing my conclusions off of evidence.

 

So, you're saying that an FBI website or the FBI's official comment is that it is appropriate to use a pejorative "Chicago politician" in the same manner one might say, "your name is Mudd" (after the doctor who treated a famous Presidential assassin)? Hmm...

 

It was actually quite easy to back up my statements, also there is a reason the term, "Chicago Mob" is well known.

 

The arrest of Gov. Blagojevich is one more chapter in a long, bipartisan history of corruption that has seen roughly 20% -- one in five -- of the state's chief executives indicted or convicted of felonies in the past century.
-- Wall Street Journal

 

Lots of people have been there. Myself included. It doesn't make them "experts" on Chicago politics anymore than visiting Boston or Houston makes me an expert in baked beans and Oil.

 

Maybe, but you do have to admit I know more about politics than you do.

 

 

You've yet to demonstrate your expertise on much of anything in this forum, Garf. Least of all politics. I hate to be honest, but sometimes that's the best policy.

 

You'll pardon me if I don't take the opinion of someone whom in my opinion is a far-left partisan seriously.

 

observe as garfield scrambles to wikipedia so he can reply with a yes and act offended by your asking

 

It's more of I find what he's accusing me of amusing, I already knew what it meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but you do have to admit I know more about politics than you do.

You'll pardon me if I don't take the opinion of someone whom in my opinion is a far-left partisan seriously.

Question:

 

Is trolling just something you do for amusement, or does it just spring out of you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<yawn>

 

"Chicago mob" and "chicago politics" boil down to irrational, fear-mongering and hate-filled rhetoric un-patriotically designed to discredit the President of the United States of America.

 

:rofl: Questions of corruption in Chicago politics lonnnnnnng precede BO and will continue long after he's a memory (or at least as long as the city lasts). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<yawn>

 

"Chicago mob" and "chicago politics" boil down to irrational, fear-mongering and hate-filled rhetoric un-patriotically designed to discredit the President of the United States of America.

 

Seriously, you honestly expect me to believe you know anything about the topic of American Politics and you don't know about how corrupt Chicago Politics are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, you honestly expect me to believe you know anything about the topic of American Politics and you don't know about how corrupt Chicago Politics are.

Says the guy who seems to believe that visiting a place gives him superior knowledge of its inner workings.

 

Stop trying to wave your d*** around. No-one is impressed by your so called political knowledge, and your "admit I'm smarter than you" debating style is blatant spam and flame baiting.

 

Why not try to prove him wrong instead of just claiming you are? If he doesn't know about the subject, keep your d*** in your pants and find some sources to back your argument up. Give sources instead of yelling "I've been there before" like a 5 year old.

Edited by True_Avery
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i asked that, now would you kindly cite some sources for this stuff and make an argument for why this means anyone coming out of chicago is corrupt you little scamp

 

At what point do bad associations become more than coincidences and start becoming a pattern?

 

Anyways I already did post some sources, however you seem to be unable or unwilling to even look at them, both when I posted sources concerning this before the November Election and new stories on it all the way through April of this year and you mean to tell me that you haven't seen any sources... :¬:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "Chicago" thing is an irrational pejorative that he's likely parroting from Limbaugh or some other such hate-media. Its interesting and demonstrative of the irrational and, perhaps, deficient cognitive function of conservatives since such a rhetorical pejorative is so easily spread as a meme among followers of Limbaugh and other such talking-heads. The purpose is to create irrational hatred and fear.

QFE. Well said, Skin.

 

Do you seriously not consider it a non sequitur to assume that because some or even many politicians in Chicago are corrupt that it, therefore, implies all are (or, more to your point, all democratic ones)?

 

Part Two of this question: Do you know what a non sequitur is?

I imagine the answer to both of those questions are no, from his point of view.

 

 

You've yet to demonstrate your expertise on absolutely anything at all, by a longshot in this forum, Garf. Least of all politics. I hate to be honest, but sometimes that's the best policy.

 

Fix'd. You're welcome.

 

You'll pardon me if I don't take the opinion of someone whom in my opinion is a far-left partisan seriously.

Brilliant ad hominem in order to continue your complete and utter self deception!

you little scamp

:xp:

It's no doubt guilt by association, which doesn't mean the "suspect" is innocent either.

You're right. Oh ****, there's this little thing we seem to have forgotten about. Goddamn American 'innocent until proven guilty' rule :rolleyes:

When we start thinking with your mind?

Jesus, that'll be the day.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we start thinking with your mind?

 

Ad hominem removed -ET

 

@ EnderWiggin

 

Do you want me to quote the definitions of the words from websters dictionary, or dictionary.com? Using big words doesn't mean you're intelligent, just means you know how to use big words.

 

 

Also it's funny how you only use innocent until proven guilty when it is a Democrat.

 

 

Seriously, you guys are drunk on Kool-Aid.

Edited by ET Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want me to quote the definitions of the words from websters dictionary, or dictionary.com? Using big words doesn't mean you're intelligent, just means you know how to use big words.

 

Oh, please do. In fact, quote absolutely anything you'd like in order to try to make an argument. Actually, I challenge you to do so.

 

$5 that he can't do it.

 

Seriously, you guys are drunk on Kool-Aid.

Great counterargument.

 

_EW_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please do. In fact, quote absolutely anything you'd like in order to try to make an argument. Actually, I challenge you to do so.

 

$5 that he can't do it.

 

Okay you owe me $5.

 

non se⋅qui⋅tur   /nɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər, -ˌtʊər; Lat. noʊn ˈsɛkwɪˌtʊər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [non sek-wi-ter, -toor; Lat. nohn se-kwi-toor] Show IPA

–noun 1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- dictionary.com

 

 

Great counterargument.

 

The truth usually is a good counterargument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're right. Oh ****, there's this little thing we seem to have forgotten about. Goddamn American 'innocent until proven guilty' rule :rolleyes:

 

_EW_

 

Hmm....looks around and can't find a courtroom. Looks back at _EW_ :rolleyes:

 

Ender, my statement is still true. Since noone is being tried here perhaps you can explain how your retort is remotely relevant. If a guilty man gets found innocent b/c he has a good lawyer, it doesn't mean he IS innocent of his crime, just that a jury didn't find him guilty. I didn't say anyone was guilty, I said that guilt by association tends to make people looked at with greater scrutiny or suspicion. Being guilty and pronounced guilty by a jury are clearly two different things :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. Oh ****, there's this little thing we seem to have forgotten about. Goddamn American 'innocent until proven guilty' rule :rolleyes:

 

Tell that to Scooter Libby, whom we know for a fact and we know that the Prosecutor knew that Libby wasn't the leak, and the prosecutor still went after Libby anyways.

 

 

Tell that to President Bush, whom you all tend to claim that he let 9/11 happen or he deliberately went into Iraq knowing the intelligence was faulty.

 

 

At least when I accused Obama of being tied into this there is a money trail (which I posted about before), there is also a pattern (which I tried to lay out only to have posts deleted by certain individuals), while you and your cronies just have a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... say we were all suddenly to see the light and agree with you, Garf... Sooo... Then what?

 

I'm still unclear what pointing out the questionable past business practices of unelected appointed administration officials will ultimately prove.

 

Is it to remove this particular group of folks from office, and replace them all before they get a chance to even do anything? Or is the goal to eventually bring Impeachment charges against the whole administration?

 

If there's anything the last 16 years have proven, it's that impeachment is a highly unpopular process with the public. And I imagine it would be doubly (if not more) so with this particular president.

 

So what exactly is the point with all of this, except for publicly griping about the folks in power who's politics you don't happen to agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what exactly is the point with all of this, except for publicly griping about the folks in power who's politics you don't happen to agree with?

That's Garfy's M.O., ed. Pretty much every single post of his is some sort of fearmongering platform that he's found on or is basing off of his beloved conservative blogs. As can be expected, there is little to no logic used, and he is far too brainwashed to respond to reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... say we were all suddenly to see the light and agree with you, Garf... Sooo... Then what?

 

I'm still unclear what pointing out the questionable past business practices of unelected appointed administration officials will ultimately prove.

 

Is it to remove this particular group of folks from office, and replace them all before they get a chance to even do anything? Or is the goal to eventually bring Impeachment charges against the whole administration?

 

If there's anything the last 16 years have proven, it's that impeachment is a highly unpopular process with the public. And I imagine it would be doubly (if not more) so with this particular president.

 

So what exactly is the point with all of this, except for publicly griping about the folks in power who's politics you don't happen to agree with?

 

I'm not pushing for impeachment unless it can be proved that he committed an impeachable offense, what I would like is for him to get new vetters for choosing appointees.

 

That said, if Obama committed bribery, then public opinion or no Public Opinion the Constitution defines it as an impeachable offense.

 

That's Garfy's M.O., ed. Pretty much every single post of his is some sort of fearmongering platform that he's found on or is basing off of his beloved conservative blogs. As can be expected, there is little to no logic used, and he is far too brainwashed to respond to reason.

 

Sorry if I'm not falling for the Obama is the second-coming garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not pushing for impeachment unless it can be proved that he committed an impeachable offense, what I would like is for him to get new vetters for choosing appointees.
And if he doesn't? I'm not sure what any of us can do about it.

 

If the folks he appoints are found to be guilty of the things they are accused of, they will no doubt be removed and replaced. But I don't suspect the replacements will make the conservatives any happier... Because, even if they have spotless records: They are still going to be liberal democrats no matter the vetting process.

 

And if these folks aren't found to be guilty (or are never even brought up on charges) then what? What power do we have to "un-appoint" them?

 

That said, if Obama committed bribery, then public opinion or no Public Opinion the Constitution defines it as an impeachable offense.
So is lying under oath... but Clinton walked away from his proceedings to finish his term. And the process wasn't exactly popular with the public (outside of a select conservative base, that is.) We'll never know what the public reaction would have been had he been removed from office. I think it could have been truly ugly... and he was far less popular at the time than Obama is now.

 

I personally think Obama is far too politically savvy to ever get his fingers dirty in that way. But good luck and have fun trying to make it stick...

 

Sorry if I'm not falling for the Obama is the second-coming garbage.
Never claimed he was.

He's just an astute politician who is popular with a large part of the electorate right now. But he's just a man, and an American politician... with all the baggage that implies.

 

I happen to agree with some of his political stances, and I'm willing to give him a chance to try to prove himself before trying to run him out of office on innuendo, incrimination by association, and largely baseless speculations about his ethics. (My personal attitude being: that if you set the ethical bar high enough, NO politician would survive... and possibly NO American citizen could ever possibly hold higher office.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...